Could you explain me?

Dear all.

I shot this pic yestarday, pointing directly to the sun - straight out of camara.
The sky is blue and the church is quite bright considering the conditions.


I have two others take of this pic, one darker and one lighter where both the sky and the church are acceptable.


I shot this today. the sky is lighter and the building is under-exposed.
When I tried to expose well the building, the sky was completely over exposed. I cound not get any "mid point"


I would have thought that the first image could have been more "contrasty" because the sun was strong and I was pointing the lens directly to it. While the second pic is the one with more contrast.

Could you explain me why?

This is the final image:

Lots of dynamic range in that scene. It might not be possible to get everything reasonably exposed in one shot.

This is a scene that might call for High Dynamic Range techniques, whereby you take several shots, at different exposure levels, pick out three shots that best give you proper exposure between them of all the scene, and then use a program like Microsoft's Geodesic High-Dynamic-Range Photography Tool to make a single picture from them.

In the church spire shot, it well light due to the light reflecting off the clouds as well as the blue sky. The other shot has trees blocking that light.

As Bob points out, it's a Dynamic Range issue. In the church shot, the light is bright but it's bright over the ENTIRE image. Yes, the church is not AS bright as the sky, but there's enough ambient light that the shot, overall, is fairly balanced. Bright, but balanced.

In the second shot, there is a much larger difference, or wider range, between the brightest section of the image and the darkest section of the image. DSLR's have limited dynamic range; the ability to accurately expose both highlights AND the shadows, and when that range is exceeded you're going to have blow-out.

Just a little work in Lightroom can fix it

Thank you vary much!!!
I was guessing something like that (that the church is not that dark because it gets a lot of reflection from all the surrounding surfaces that plays as natural reflectors (there`s a lot of white around there) while the church is in deep shadow)


I was guessing if aperture can also change the way the camera react...


Thanks Bob for the editing... Cool version... It looks like HDR


In the second image of the church, I rose a bit the brighteners of the church but not too much... It's difficult for me to explain but... As I did it, it represent well what my eye was seeing... If you look directly to the sun, you'll be almost blinded... So the church cannot be too bright... For this reason I kept it a bit under-exposed. Also because I did like the idea to have all the light concentrated in the angel... A kinda apocalyptic scenario... haha...

I'll work on it.
I'm happy that in the RAW there´s all the info needed for editing.

It's always a pleasure to receive suggestion from you guys.
Federico

Federico-Nov said:

Dear all.

I shot this pic yestarday, pointing directly to the sun - straight out of camara.
The sky is blue and the church is quite bright considering the conditions.
View attachment 230762

I have two others take of this pic, one darker and one lighter where both the sky and the church are acceptable.


I shot this today. the sky is lighter and the building is under-exposed.
When I tried to expose well the building, the sky was completely over exposed. I cound not get any "mid point"
View attachment 230760

I would have thought that the first image could have been more "contrasty" because the sun was strong and I was pointing the lens directly to it. While the second pic is the one with more contrast.

Could you explain me why?

This is the final image:

View attachment 230763

Click to expand...

A couple things. SOOC I'm seeing some significant haloing around the church, something I wouldn't expect, particularly from an unprocessed RAW image, which is what you say you're shooting. Also I have to ask, are you using a circular polarizer? That can definitely help with the blues and the brights in the one while pushing you towards the not so good result in the other. I expect not since you didn't mention it, but I had to ask.

BackdoorHippie said:

A couple things. SOOC I'm seeing some significant haloing around the church, something I wouldn't expect, particularly from an unprocessed RAW image, which is what you say you're shooting. Also I have to ask, are you using a circular polarizer? That can definitely help with the blues and the brights in the one while pushing you towards the not so good result in the other. I expect not since you didn't mention it, but I had to ask.

Click to expand...

Hi!
I just use a UV filter. more then anything to protect the lens.
On the 35mm I have a 58mm hoya HD3.
(On 85mm I have a B+W 67mm Clear UV Haze)

I generally shoot portraits so I thought that a polarized filter was not that usefull to me.
Yes I shoot RAW. My edited image is from RAW. The first SOOC could be converted to JPG from RAW or a reduced JPG, I don`t remember.

Is it possible to upload RAW file?

I'm wondering about halo that backdoorhoppie noticed.